User:Mksearcy/Anorexia nervosa/Snqadri Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mksearcy


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mksearcy/Anorexia nervosa


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Anorexia nervosa

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall I think you hit the mark when it comes to adding relevant and pertinent information. Expanding on the little adage from the original article was helpful to me as a reader as it explained why that addage was not only necessary but what exactly it meant in relation to the article. The information itself isn't distracting and I don't know if distracting might even be the right word for this but I think when you are finalizing your edits, it would be helpful to find a way to better format your added information into the article.

The information itself is neutral and I think you did a good job with staying within the bounds of proper representation of viewpoints because of it.

Your citations work, at least they did when I checked the link, that's something I had trouble with so good job on getting that sorted. Also the source for the citation is great, the information is up to date and it's credible.

The only things I have to recommend besides the possible formatting issue is working further on your article and following Dr. Rahn's advice. good work so far.